Case: 13-20740 Document: 00512688760 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/07/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-20740
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, July 7, 2014
Lyle W. Cayce
Plaintiff-Appellee Clerk
v.
ODIS LEE JACKSON,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:13-CV-1503
USDC No. 4:02-CR-373-4
Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
In April 2003, Odis Lee Jackson, federal prisoner # 15806-179, was
convicted by jury verdict of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50
grams or more of cocaine base and possession with intent to distribute 50
grams or more of cocaine base. He was sentenced to a total term of life
imprisonment and ten years of supervised release. In March 2005, Jackson
filed in the district court a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion that was denied. In May
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 13-20740 Document: 00512688760 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/07/2014
No. 13-20740
2013, he filed another § 2255 motion, which the district court dismissed as an
unauthorized successive § 2255 motion. He now seeks a certificate of
appealability (COA) to appeal from that dismissal.
This court may not grant a COA unless Jackson demonstrates that
jurists of reason would find it debatable that the district court properly
dismissed his application as an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion. See 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). Because
he has failed to make that showing, his motion for a COA is DENIED. To the
extent that he seeks authorization pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A),
2255(h) to file a successive § 2255 motion in district court, we DENY that
request because his motion does not rely upon evidence or law that meets the
standards set forth in § 2255(h). We DENY his motion to amend and/or
supplement his COA motion because he seeks to raise an argument for the first
time. See Henderson v. Cockrell, 333 F.3d 592, 605 (5th Cir. 2003) (holding
that we generally do not consider claims raised for the first time in a COA
application filed in this court). His motions for appointment of counsel and for
judicial notice are also DENIED.
2